Motion Capture: Are Computer-Generated Actors the Future Of Filmmaking?

Andy Serkis has enjoyed a strikingly unique acting career. A classically trained performer, Serkis is best known for breathing vibrant life into computer-generated ghouls and apes. His portrayal of Gollum in the Lord of the Ringstrilogy helped launch his notoriety, while also highlighting the great potential for motion-capture filming — a technology which renders human performances into highly-detailed digital characters.

Rather than build on his successes and move towards more traditional roles, Serkis is choosing to double down on the motion-capture bet, launching his own specialty film studio – The Imaginarium. Serkis hopes to teach actors the craft of motion-capture performances, familiarizing them with the technology’s process. This is an investment in what Serkis believes to be the future of cinema, preparing a new generation of 'cyber-thespians.'

The movie industry has always adapted to the times — incorporating costumes, props, sets, technology, and locations to help bring imagination to life. The ever-increasing quality of computer-generated imagery (CGI) has helped engage audiences in a more immersive way. Steven Spielberg was once considered a pioneer for his use of an animatronic sharks in Jaws. Years later, he combined animatronic dinosaurs with innovative CGI for Jurassic Park.

Limited only by their imagination, animators and computer experts soon realized they could materialize any world for the big screen. The only limiting factor was that audiences often found computer rendered characters to look emotionally neutral, with “soulless” eyes and stiff movements. But motion capture places small sensory pins all over an actor’s body, including their various facial muscles, bringing every nuanced aspect of their movement into the animation. The result is a more fluid, expressive and “human” manifestation. Audiences are already getting used to seeing a film cast include, if not be dominated by, computer rendered characters.

To Serkis, this represents a new era of possibilities. An actor can be transformed into an alien, animal, demon or monster without having to utilize layers of make-up. They need only perform their role, and watch as the computer transforms them. Theoretically, this could allow one actor to play several roles — replacing a large cast with a few tech savvy performers. 

James Franco, who starred with Serkis in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, wrote about his awe for the technology's potential: "[Performance Capture] doesn’t mean that old-fashioned acting will go the way of silent film actors ... [it] actually allows actors to work opposite each other in more traditional ways, meaning that the actors get to interact with each other and look into each other's eyes."

The underlying skill required to bring these animations to life is still very much that of a talented actor. 

To that end, Fox Studios generated an aggressive campaign last year, pushing for Serkis' Oscar consideration for his performance of Caesar in the Planet of the Apes. This idea might seem laughable, but it was more than 80 years ago that Mickey Mouse won the first ever "non-human" Oscar.

Perhaps motion-capture is only a passing fad, and will simply be considered a skill any actor should know — alongside accents, stage combat or dance. But having worked in motion-capture for over a decade, Serkis believes it’s here to stay and worth investing in. Imaginarium Studios already has its own slate of films scheduled for production, including a motion capture rendition of Animal Farm. In his passion, we see a marriage between classic expressive acting and the endless possibilities of animation. As long as the boundaries and technology keep getting pushed forward, we may one day not be able to tell the difference between “real” and “make-believe.”

3D Printing: Instant Custom Designs

       For those of us raised on Star Trek and Jetsons cartoons, technology that could fabricate any object within minutes seemed a distant sci-fi fantasy akin to jetpacks and moon bases. But the era of 3D printing is near, rapidly setting roots in the manufacturing market place and poised to dramatically change the way in which we create our goods. 

       3D Printing is the revolutionary process by which digital designs can be transformed into real world physical objects, ranging from toys to jewelry and even complex machine parts. Thanks to an increase in government funding, box sized devices capable of custom molding metals, plastics and ceramics have dropped in price to approximately $1,000. 

       What does this mean for your every day consumer? Well for starters there will be a massive marginal increase in personalization. Utilizing a vast and open library of designs, anyone will soon be able to create customizable products in the comfort of their home. Imagine seeing something you like on Amazon, clicking on it and having a printer in your home create it right in front of you. Engineers and Inventors will also be able to create prototypes of their creations in hours, without having to utilize factories that can take several weeks to get back to them. Artists will be able to sell their designs digitally, and allow their customers to create the works in the comfort of their living room. 

       The printers achieve this by segmenting a 3D design into thin horizontal “slices”. It then creates the object layer by layer, bound by a heated nozzle or electron beam…the futuristic equivalent of “brick by brick”. This is an undeniably huge leap forward in scientific capabilities, but before we start demanding an update on our teleportation devices, we should examine the technology’s limitations. 

       The most obvious of these are the required raw materials and machine complexity. Most of us don’t have access to precious metals or expensive resources. Moreover, if you want to create something more complicated than metallic parts, plastic molds or ceramic shapes, the machine you use will be significantly more expensive. This isn’t an insurmountable hurdle, however, as it opens a marketplace for stores that are willing to facilitate the niche demands.

       A pop-up shop in Soho called MakerBot, for example, is offering customers the ability to print off customizable goods in store. Rows of colorful raw materials decorate the walls, while the futuristic machines take center stage on the store floor. This might be the future of the shopping experience: browse a digital catalogue on a computer screen, choose your materials and colors, then watch your creation come to life right before your eyes.

       Another application for the technology exists outside of commercial goods. Biomedical specialists at Wake and Cornell University are pursuing fascinating advancements in printing human organs and cartilage from raw biological materials. Although the viability of these might be a few more years down the line, the implications are a potential revolution in organ replacements, customized to each patient’s DNA. 

       There are some other, potentially dangerous, manifestations for the technology as well. If companies share digital designs for gun molds, people will be able to construct functioning pistols in their homes made of metal or ceramic. This would allow people to circumvent the registration process of in store purchases, and create problems for metal detectors incapable of sensing ceramic guns.

       Despite all the possibilities, no one actually knows what service model people really want with this technology. Venture capitalists have invested millions, but it is unclear whether the start-ups have a solid idea for how to make 3D printing real to the masses. We may very well be at the onset of a new industrial revolution, where cottage industries re-emerge and even bring manufacturing back to the American shores. Whatever the future holds for 3D technologies, we won’t have to wait too long to find out.

Virtual Sex

       The pleasure center of the brain was discovered in a famous 1950s lab experiment utilizing rats. Two researches attached wires directly to certain regions of the rodent’s brain. The rats would then receive a current whenever they pressed down on a paddle in front of them. At the peak, some rats were pressing the paddle as much as seven-hundred times per hour. They ignored their food and sexual partners, eventually dying of exhaustion. These were the first instances of arousal addiction. 

       We are undergoing an interesting experiment ourselves. Since the late ’90s, every young male with internet access has been able to venture into the boundless world of online pornography (often before they’ve even begun to develop sexually.) Without a comparative control group - i.e. boys who don’t have internet access, it’s hard to know what changes this magnified convenience has had on the collective sexual psyche. Masturbation has always been a healthy and necessary part of sexual development, but humans have never had access to a limitless resource like the internet before. Just like the lab Rat’s paddle, our unending pleasure is just a few mouse-clicks away.

       We’ve learned from the rats, and general human behavior, that any activity which rewards the pleasure center does so by releasing the chemical Dopamine. This makes us want to repeat the behavior more frequently, and with greater potency. It’s why we eat ourselves into obesity, play video games for hours, measure our self worth in facebook likes and chain drink our coffee. When online pornography first rose to prominence, some worried it would lead to an increase in male aggression. They saw a danger in the unending novelty of internet porn, allowing more nudity to be seen than any of our ancestors could have fathomed. But in place of barbaric Hunters, docile Gatherers have thrived; voyeuristically enjoying a harem of fantasies collected through electronic windows. 

       Real courtship requires facing our anxieties, interacting in person, the rush of hormones, attraction, conversation, seduction, humor and confidence. If people begin to find that comparatively daunting to pressing a few buttons, we will probably continue to see rises in diagnosed depression, erectile dysfunction and social anxiety. A similarly modern social shift can be found in the online dating debate. Those in favor, advocate access to larger pools of partners, offering pairings that otherwise might never have occurred. The other side fears online dating has changed people’s perception of monogamy, turning meaningful courtships into a form of algorithmed virtual shopping.

       So is there an inherent harm in enjoying online pornography? The brain has always been elastic, and we change the circuitry with almost any repeated action. We avoid the dangers of fast moving cars, reward our work ethic with a sense of accomplishment and cultivate hobbies that give us joy. We are constantly learning, so why is our curiosity with virtual sex so different? It seems even for those among us who enjoyed open and honest discussions about sex growing up, online pornography still carries a stigma of shame. It’s been two decades…surely everyone is doing it by now, right? Watching online porn is a normalized activity, and yet we still seem uncomfortable discussing it for some reason.

       Let’s picture the average adolescent. Whatever they view online, generally tends to be divorced from the concepts of sex that teachers and parents explain to them. There is simply too much explicit vulgarity, uninhibited experimentation and shock value exhibitionism to be found online. What does a latex clad slave being whipped by an array of men in furry animal suits have to do with real intimacy or the creation of a family? As morbid curiosity sets in, more and more unseen novelties must be discovered. As a result, this isolated young mind creates a wall of shame between his online ventures and the reality of the world around. This has become a routine facet of modern sexual development.

       Millennials were exposed to this circus of erotic imagery at a young age, long before we ever began having sex. How would real intercourse compare with the deviant imagery embedded in our young neural pathways? Life doesn’t have a fast forward button to skip to favorite parts. It doesn’t offer a diversity of partners, costumes and toys with every sexual encounter (outside of Las Vegas.) Would all those long stored, hard wired fantasies rooted in our adolescent minds be a hindrance or a help? The answer is, of course, that no porn will ever compare to real sex. It is a fast and cheap imitation, of something passionately tactile and engagingly layered. 

       In the end, the habit of watching online porn seems less about nudity, sex, power or even lust, and more about ease of access. You don’t do it because you’re sexual drive is surging or you’re particularly horny, you do it because you’re bored and it’s available. Porn isn’t a drug, it’s junk food! We consume it even though we aren’t really hungry, and it might ruin our appetite. Just like junk food, it is comprised of the vulgar fundamentals of real food: sugar, salt and fat. We’d be terribly mistaken to confuse its easy comfort with nutritional value. Pornography itself has been around since our earliest civilizations, in every form of art and expression. But it’s undergone the same evolution as food, arriving at its most base manifestation. It is yet another temptation in which we should seek moderation, despite our drooling brain’s compulsive desire, lest we go the way of the exhausted rats.

The Foods of Tomorrow

       Our ancestors had two distinct food acquisition roles: Hunter and Gatherer. If the animals were scarce, fruits and vegetation would hold us over. For a time, that was all we needed to gain Nature’s bounty. But then we migrated, populated new territories, farmed crops and built cities. Any new life forms found in our travels were soon added to the menu. After the industrial revolution, as our global population exploded, there wasn’t an animal in the sky, sea or field that we hadn’t tasted. But mass consumption and extinction have claimed several species. Wildlife and farmed animals alike can no longer sustain human demand, there is little virgin land left open to agriculture, oceans are being overfished and futuristic super pills packed full of nutrients still seem out of our reach. So how will we feed the mouths of billions as our resources continue to grow scarce? 

       A scientifically intriguing suggestion that often comes up isSynthetic Meat, also known as Lab Meat. Before we come to understand the process, we should speculate its necessity. China and India both have a large emerging middle class. When GDP goes up, so does demand for meat and a westernized diet. Raising cattle requires an exorbitant amount of water, food and fuel. Approximately 100 pounds of inefficient resources go towards producing 15 pounds of edible meat. Alternatively, the process of developing synthetic meat involves very few cells being cultivated into large portions within a lab. Specialized proteins applied to these base muscle cells help them grow and duplicate. One animal’s cells could realistically provide millions of pounds of in vitro meat, in turn feeding the world’s population. If brought to market and made commercially viable, synthetic meat would produce 90% fewer greenhouse gases than farm raised meat, use 99% less land and require 85-90% less water usage. Compared to an agriculture that is fast becoming too expensive for consumers to support, synthetics might very well be the best economic option. 

       But food is also about taste! The biggest hurdle artificial meat faces is the lack of blood and fat cells that give meat its unique flavor. Many animal rights activists will be happy to know that lab meat is never connected to a brain, nervous system or any form of consciousness, but the catch is that the muscles produced never exercise or gain that natural leanness found in active creatures. If the progress of the technology keeps accelerating at its current pace, perhaps we can address these issues and make a viable, inexpensive supermarket product.

       It’s worth noting, that a cluster of new and intriguing ethical issues arise with this technology. For instance, will it potentially end the farming culture in America altogether? Would it be morally problematic if people wanted to eat human flesh produced in this manner?  If this cannibal cuisine trend arose, would celebrities sell their skin samples as a luxury food? What sudden biodiversity affects could occur, if most of the land and animals return to a “wild” un-farmed state? Most importantly, because In-Vitro meat has yet to be placed on the market, what are the potential health risks we need to investigate? 

       It’s apparent that many issues have yet to be addressed, and demands for new food might arrive sooner than we’re ready to answer them. So what are the formidable contenders to synthetic meat that could theoretically fill the void?

Algae seems to be a sensible candidate. The single-cell organisms can grow very rapidly at sea. The bio-fuel produced from Algae already has shipping and airline companies looking into the viability of algae oil. Algae farms could produce up to 10,000 gallons of ethanol biofuel per acre, compared to 350 gallons from maize. Its energy uses aside, algae can also act as a fertilizer. Kelps fix CO2 in the atmosphere and provide sugars, oils and fats. Algae may hold a rather low rank on the food chain, but China and Japan already widely consume it in the form of seaweeds, and animals of all sizes from shrimp to blue whales eat it regularly. The hurdle seems to be in diversifying the culinary styles in which we might enjoy it. As soon as a few trendy restaurants cultivate Algae based specials on their menus, we may see a new kind of green revolution.

Leaving no stone unturned, we can’t forget the obvious option: Insects! The human population is easily dwarfed by insects, both in biomass and numbers. Eating insects, or Entomophagy, is already widely practiced across the world (Mexico has a popular Grasshopper taco.) Spiders, worms, ants and beetles are eaten across Latin America, Asia and Africa. Compared to our current livestock, insect farms require far less land, are far more efficient at converting plants into edible meat and emit fewer greenhouse gases. They are rich in proteins, low in fat and high in calcium and iron. They can even flourish on waste and paper, offering an auxiliary cleaning service. The ants crawling all over your picnic may soon become the main course themselves.

       There are many new horizons available to us, but we should learn from the blunders we’ve made in the last century when it comes to modifying nature. For every step towards progress, we’ve suffered new dangers as well. Antibiotics kill most bacteria, only leaving the strongest and most resistant to come back in a wave of powerful vengeance. Hybrid seeds, chemical fertilizers and genetically modified crops helped us feed millions of starving people in drought stricken lands. But now the weeds have cross bred with the crops, and have become resistant to herbicides of ever increasing potency. We’re poisoning the soil and water supplies, and cannot afford to fell more forests for new farmland. The genetic modification lobby continues to promise fruits infused with vaccines, rapidly maturing animals and more efficient crops, but it might be wiser to stop combating nature and instead separate our experimentations from it. 

       Zhikang Li is a Chinese plant breeder, who has spent years working with his team to produce “green super rice”. His rice produces more grain, is more resistant to droughts, floods, salty water, insects and disease and was created without any GM technology. He took the natural route, working with hundreds of farmers and researchers in several countries to cross-breed more than 250 plants into his bountiful creation. This is the way we should be interacting with nature.

       Meanwhile our lab meat, insect cuisine and algae productions might be better suited in isolated Vertical Farms, encased laboratories and modernized greenhouses. Controlled environments can offer us less exposure to chemicals, pesticides and toxins. We can create a firewall between the “natural” world food supply, and our scientific efforts. That way, much like the Hunters and Gatherers of old, we’ll have two separate and equally important sources of food we can rely on! 

Bloody Diamonds

       Alcohol is often praised as a recession-proof industry. In times of economic woes, we spend what little money we have to drown our sorrows. In times of great fortune, we celebrate generously with imbibed cheer. Libation, in all its forms, has permeated civilizations for millennia, interlaced in song, dance and feast....so in a very human way, the product's consistency makes sense. There is, however, another industry displaying the same economic invulnerability, and yet offering none of the same rationale: Diamonds!

       Despite what the Tiffany's receipt might suggest, diamonds have no inherent value. They are far more abundant than we are led to believe, and they cannot be resold at even a fraction of their purchase price. For inexplicable reasons, our modern culture continues to celebrate their supposed rarity and glamour. Many men have fallen on the uphill battlefield of questioning this social norm. How did this mineral gain a monopoly on representing love? At what point did romance become synonymous with a stone dug from the earth? The history of the diamond industry is riddled with brutal corruption, brilliant ad campaigns and the slick corporate maneuverings of one of the world's most deplorable cartels. As more of my dear friends commit to loving marriages, I thought I'd offer an uninvited and thoroughly unappreciated look into the blood-spattered lineage behind this industry's success.

       In the mid 1800s, diamonds were an actual rarity mined solely in India and Brazil. The global supply could be measured in a few pounds and they were donned by Monarchs or Aristocrats as frivolous symbols of stature. In 1870, an unimaginably vast bounty of diamonds was discovered in South Africa. Tons of the gems were being pulled out of the ground, signaling a potential flooding of the market and diminishment of the stone's value.

       Sensing the untapped opportunity before them, several mining companies joined into a conglomerate, establishing a virtual monopoly in South Africa called "the De Beers Mining company". By 1888 De Beers controlled all production and distribution of diamonds coming out of South Africa. They created international syndicates, which many other diamond claim holders and distributors soon joined (quickly realizing the profit potential of faking scarcity and fabricating high prices.) By 1902, De Beers controlled over 90% of the world's rough-diamond production and distribution. When Ernest Oppenheimer took over control of the company in 1927, he established exclusive contracts with buyers and suppliers, essentially making it impossible to deal in diamonds outside of De Beers.

       The formula remained the same for much of the 20th century: an auxiliary of De Beers would buy diamonds from various sources, De Beers would then decide how many diamonds they'd like to sell (and at what price), and finally buyers would cultivate the market hubs in cities like New York, London or Antwerp. All the while, De Beers continued to amass a stockpile measuring in the tons, hidden away in their vaults. It was during the 1930s depression, however, that the company utilized their boldest and most successful tactic.

       Wanting to turn America into their next big market, De Beers met with advertising agencies to form a battle strategy. Their aim? To convince consumers that "Diamonds = Love". To romanticize the stone, the campaign sought to change the public's idea of how a man (successfully) courts a woman. They engaged the fledgling film industry, and covered movie idols (the paragons of mass audience romance) in their product. Magazines and select publications were flooded with stories that reinforced the idea of diamonds representing an indestructible devotion. Conspicuous photographs of celebrity's bejeweled fingers splashed across news pages. Fashion designers promoted the "rising trend" of diamonds on the radio. Even the British Royal Family was convinced to wear diamonds over other jewels, under the assertion that it could greatly aid an industry in which Great Britain had a controlling interest in.

       By 1947, the campaign had forged a psychological necessity across several classes and markets, forming a near overnight "tradition". Those who could not afford a ring, chose to defer the purchase rather than forgo it altogether. It became a common notion, that one's devotion was measured by the size of the engagement ring. The now immortal De Beers tag line: "a diamond is forever" was cemented in the common psyche. Diamond sales continued to skyrocket, as De Beers exported the campaign to a number of new countries, creating multi-billion dollar profits.


       Meanwhile, behind the scenes they utilized any and all tactics to ensure control over the flow of stones in the market. If a new discovery of diamonds threatened De Beers' autonomy (like the large Siberian mine of the 1950s) the company simply bought the entire inventory, continuing to channel the world's supply through a restricted funnel. When countries like Israel or Zaire attempted to protest or challenge the monopoly with diamonds of their own, De Beers would flood the market with similar products from its stockpiled inventory and drive down demand. The only threat to their dominance was the potential discovery of a giant new untapped source, outside of their control. To that end, De Beers used their colonial connections to weave discoveries of diamonds in Africa into the fold of their cartel, also bringing Russia into the conglomerate and turning a blind eye to the warlords and slavers who savaged the lands, brutalized their people and fed the company's ever brimming vaults.



       This is the hidden history of the Diamond invention. They are a fabricated fantasy, born of the greed of one tyrannical syndicate which has dictated the price for decades. Consumers have been fooled into perpetuating the idea that these abundant pieces of carbon are somehow unique symbols of esteem...tokens of wealth and romance. De Beers propogated this illusion of scarcity to become one of the most successful cartels in the history of commerce. Almost any other commodity has fluctuated in response to economic conditions, but diamonds have steadily advanced upwards in price since the 1930s. People continue to wear them, or hoard them in safes as "family heirlooms". The most painful irony is, none of them could be sold for even a tenth of their original purchase price. The diamond market relies on consumers never parting with their rings or necklaces or earrings. That way, only the distributors can dictate value. It is a sad, cyclical delusion which costs lives, corrupts nations and materializes our affections.

**** Postscript****

       I am not without romance or an appreciation for symbolism. So for those looking for a token of their courtship and affection, please consider one of the many alternative stones, which display the same glittering, enduring beauty... but are free of the inherent blood cost or price fixing trickery. Some options for your convenience listed below, happy holidays:

Evolution by Design

       There's a curious contradiction in the 'evolution versus creationist' debate. One side credits our survival to chaotic circumstances, where chance and fate dictated which traits were "naturally" selected. The other side claims intelligent design played the pivotal role in our supremacy. The truth of the matter is, our species has historically enjoyed a bit of both.

       If you take the deity out of the equation, we have a long history of meeting nature's threats with our own uniquely designed solutions. By paving roads, farming crops, wearing clothes and building cities we've continually reshaped the world around us to cater to our evolving needs. Our ingenuity became the main expression of our natural selection. Complexity and scale aside, there's little difference between us and the ants digging tunnels beneath the soil. Survival of the fittest has become survival of the most adaptive, and the evolution of intelligence is measured in how quickly (or preemptively) we participate in those adaptations. It only makes sense, therefore, that we now seek to fix design flaws within our own bodies.

       Being social creatures in a globalized age, however, also means that our modern innovations tend to change our species as a whole. Airplanes allowed us to traverse the globe in a matter of hours, dramatically accelerating human migration. Medicines fight against viruses and bacteria, keeping our last natural predators at bay. The Internet unifies our collective voices around a common campfire, ensuring the greatest possible wealth of knowledge. Humanity is slowly but surely becoming a collective hive. Progress towards this grand scale unity has thus far been wrought with conflict, and none of these innovations came without painstaking labor, research and failures. Crossing the gulf from the beastly to the divine will often require us to play God, as we messily discover as many dangers as we do solutions.

       So what are some of the life altering technologies being cultivated today? And how might they redefine what it is to be human? The Biotechnology industry regularly pioneers designs that seek to improve the human body's complex mechanisms. There are several companies poised to reach revolutionary milestones as they work to make their products commercially viable:

DNA sequencing has seen drastic improvements in speed and costs. We've gone from the multi-billion dollar Human Genome Project in 2003, to companies that can process DNA at $1,000 per genome. We've mapped thousands of people's hereditary information, opening the door to the possibility of highly personalized medicines replacing the common one-pill-suits-all approach.

Tissue Engineering passed a landmark when Scientists at Wake Forest created a 3D printer capable of making artificial cartilage. The "electrospinning" process creates extremely thin plastic polymer fibers which healthy cartilage cells grow around, allowing for a rejuvenation of elasticity and mechanical function in our joints. As soon as human trials are complete, Arthritics around the world will celebrate a return to mobility. Wake Forest is also pursuing organ printing, including kidneys and hearts customized to each patient's DNA. 

Mind-controlled prosthetics developed by DARPA and John Hopkins allow patients who've lost limbs or suffered spinal injuries to regain their dexterity through complex robotic arms. Patients control the limb via microchips implanted in their brain, capable of decoding neural signals into accurate movements. 

Retinal Implants, a German company, have manufactured a sub-Retina implant that successfully restored vision to some blind patients. One more innovation in an ever increasing array of technologies augmenting and improving our bodily functions. 

       As impressive as these specified solutions may be, they stand to be collectively overshadowed by one particularly significant Bio-medical development...a holy grail once considered science fiction fantasy: Gene Therapy. 

       We currently have the ability to go directly into our DNA and swap genes around. We'll soon know which bad genes can be substituted with good ones, preventing or curing several diseases like cystic fibrosis and muscular dystrophy - and without the use of drugs or surgery. Being able to turn off or remove certain genes will utterly revolutionize the medical profession. 

       A few steps down the road, and we'll be able to use gene manipulation to pursue 'enhancements' such as increased memory or intelligence. It won't be long before we combine the practice with RNA interference, controlling our internal mechanisms and changing every facet of our body. This will be the most significant paradigm shift of all. Imagine creating customized viruses designed to implant improved RNA made up of our own genes into every cell in within our body. We'll be able to transform back into younger versions of ourselves through natural regeneration. A whole new market of purely aesthetic changes will also undoubtedly emerge: requests for increased height, muscle density, cleavage size, eye color, hair length, etc. We will enter the age of blueprints for dream bodies, modifiable and adaptable to our will. The era of designer babies.

       There is another side to the coin of course. There are those who predict the emergence of a technological class system, separating naturalists from those who can afford enhancements. The potential exists for two or more distinct new species to develop among us, separated by a combination of significant genetic advantages. This also only considers the scope of individual consumer level selections, but what about national programs forcibly instituted by governments? Increased fertility to boost populations? Increased violence in soldiers? Docile obedience in citizens? Control of sexuality? It's easy to imagine what some of history's dictators might have done with this power.

        Finally, what about the philosophical component? The derisive dispute between Evolutionists and Creationists is not merely a disagreement over our origins. These conflicting factions will most likely form the groups who are either ready to venture into the technological age, or too resistant to change to adopt it. The component of human character we call 'faith' is a fascination with the unknown, a desire for the mystical quality of the undiscovered. Science is a balanced discipline of control, seeking to understand and shape the world around us. The marriage of these two qualities is at the core of human curiosity, we yearn to understand while always looking to new frontiers. It's worth asking whether the human spirit will burn as brightly when our emotions are regulated through refined drugs and our bodies maintained through complex machinery? Will we one day yearn for the unpredictable frailty of our former chaos?

       The gleaming civilization we stand on today was forcibly imported onto a land once home to natives. They were slaughtered so that a new way of life could be built. The advent of industry offered new comforts, but at what cost? No sooner have we accepted a new paradigm than another arrives to render it obsolete, and we often lose good along with the bad – safety and security at the cost of wisdom; information at the cost of wonder. It is a great accomplishment to master our internal mechanisms, but every time we've pursued a technological advancement it's become a change that is rarely undone. We must ask ourselves, what are we giving away to gain this new advantage? Is this path a way to abandon our true selves? Or become our true selves?


       In this age of accelerating transformation, technology advances almost faster than we can understand it. Ideally we can keep the flame of our ambition burning, while being vigilant in how we shape it. It seems surreal to imagine our future might look like what's been described above, but none of these technologies are theoretical...they're already here. We are the co-creators of our fate, and we can no longer afford to idly wait for the next wave of change to decide what survives. Let us ensure the next great human leap isn't built on a foundation of broken ideals.

The Truce on Drugs: ending decades of failed policy

       Colorado and Washington state recently decriminalized marijuana, once again giving voice to the national divide over our contentious drug enforcement policies. While various groups continue to debate the legal, medical, social and economic factors, one industry has managed to steadily flourish: private prisons.

       The United States currently has the highest incarceration rate of any nation on Earth. We put more of our citizens in jail than any of the religious theocracies, despotic tyrannies or war ravaged military states we decry in our media. No society in history has imprisoned more of its citizens. It seems there is a criminal epidemic in the land of the free…or perhaps we’re not as diligent in safeguarding our liberty as we’d like to believe. 

       By now, most have heard the statistic: “America comprises 5% of the world population, but has 25% of the world’s prisoners.” But why is that the case? Which group of ‘offenders’ is most responsible for this soaring increase? The commonly credited cause tends to be the ongoing “war on drugs”. While other crimes may only have one lawbreaker, the drug trade provides targets for arrest on both the consumer and provider side. Moreover, crimes such as theft, assault and even murder can usually be tied back to the drugs. It’s interesting to note, however, that violent crime rates in America have significantly dropped over the years. Moreover, most people in the American prison system are serving terms for non-violent crimes. Before we can fully understand the nature of our current penal system, we must first take a deviation into the history of our drug enforcement policy.

       The truth is, the priorities and implementation of the war on drugs have shifted with each passing decade, leaving a complex state of conflicting interests in its wake. Nixon first introduced the program as a social welfare campaign, where most of the funds were primarily dedicated to rehabilitation and medical services. During the 1980s competing cartels turned Miami into a war zone, and policy focus was shifted to law enforcement accordingly. The nation was suffering a recession, but the Floridian party-capital was thriving under the influx of cash dealers were bringing in. They had a hand in almost every aspect of the city’s economy, sudden urbanization, land development and skyscraper construction. But this prosperity came at the cost of constant graphic violence that the city was ill equipped to police (leaving a murder count in Miami that was almost higher than the rest of the nation combined.) It was only after Reagan utilized the military to attack the cartels in their South American bases that crime in America returned to normal. But why was the program allowed to continue in this new direction after the threat was dealt with?

       Well for one thing, those agencies which had flourished under increased funding were reluctant to relinquish their newfound power. Just like Homeland Security must justify its bloated budget as it strives to “prevent another 911”, the Drug Enforcement Agency saw a potentially continuous source of profit in globally targeting the trade. Recent Rico laws have allowed local police and federal agents to keep the money they seize from drug busts, incentivizing them with a financial motivation over a moral one. Police officers working on murders or white collar fraud can take months to build a case, while their drug focused colleagues rack in daily busts and gain promotional advantage. This creates a culture of prioritizing drug related targets over any other form of crime. Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies and alcohol lobbies have been very eager to villainize the “drug menace” and keep another competitor out of their market. Leaving the final link in the chain to grow unchecked: the prison industrial complex.

       Many predicted that the war on drugs would fail, most notably Milton Friedman (President Nixon’s former election advisor, free market economist and Nobel Laureate.) Friedman was an avid scholar of the prohibition era of the 20s and 30s, and wrote a letter to Nixon at the onset of the war on drugs. Herein he described a likely pattern of events that would emerge, mimicking the chaos of the failed prohibition policies. 

       Milton explained that during Al Capone’s reign over Chicago, American’s desire to drink was not extinguished by the new laws. Instead, they were forced to find illegitimate sellers and suffer the harms of products created under reduced quality controls. Buyers were motivated to stray away from soft drinks like wine and beer, and explore quicker extremes in hard liquor (which profited the bootleggers as well.) Those criminals providing consumers with alcohol cared little for their safety, well being or budgets. A now unreasonably expensive habit caused increases in crime to pay for it.

       But Friedman saw new dangers in the criminalization of drugs as well. He predicted that an impressionable youth would find the “forbidden fruit” of drugs more seductive. He knew that competing dealers would be incentivized to brand themselves by creating the most potent products on the market. He knew that if drugs were no longer classified under the canopy of a health issue, users would feel like criminals and be far more reluctant to seek help. Friedman explained that the duality of consumption and alienation from the law, would cause citizens to have decreased respect for the other laws of society. The overnight portion of society that were suddenly labeled criminals, would require police forces to move away from other crimes to deal with them. Furthermore, criminals with large profits would more effectively bribe police and judges, reducing the legitimacy of the legal system.

It is a sad state of affairs, that we so wholly embody a forty year old prediction…

       There is no doubt that drugs can harm the individual, families and even communities. But it is important to distinguish the harm caused by the substance, and the harm caused by the prohibition. The misguided laws created for this “cure” only add to the misery. Those very same dangers we were warned against: unknown substances, from unknown sources, with unknown effects are a direct result of laws not the substances themselves. Decriminalization can lead to regulation, quality control, researched medical advice and treatment. Instead, the chaos created by these laws is used as justification to defend them. It’s a vicious self-repeating cycle that has gone on for far too long. So why hasn’t it stopped?

       That brings us back to one of the most deplorable industries profiting from this public misery:  Private Prisons. 

       Before we examine the mechanics and distinctions of private prisons, let us come to grips with the relevant statistics. In 2008 approximately one in every 31 adults (7.3 million) in the United States was behind bars, or being monitored (probation and parole). The breakdown for adults under correctional control was as follows:

- 1 out of 18 men
- 1 in 89 women
- 1 in 11 African-Americans (9.2%)
- 1 in 27 Latinos (3.7%)
- 1 in 45 Caucasians (2.2%)

       Private Prisons, and the various businesses that supply them, have been advocating for ever increasing control over the national prison population, under the guise of offering a more “efficient” alternative to state run facilities. Construction firms, surveillance companies, guard unions and several other businesses have aligned themselves with this ever growing industry. On top of being paid by the states to house each criminal, private prisons are also permitted to transform their prisoners into a work force. Aside from construction, field work and other physical labor, prisoners in America produce all military helmets, ammunition belts, bullet proof vests and ID tags. They account for 98% of the total market for equipment assembly services. They make 36% of home appliances, 21% of office furniture and 30% of all microphones, headphones and speakers.

       For the corporate owners of these private prisons, this is like winning the lottery. They own a labor force which the government pays them to house, making money on both ends. America has strict laws that prohibit the importation of products made by slave labor abroad. Meanwhile, we’ve essentially reinvented slave labor at home. Prisoners can of course refuse to work, but they face solitary confinement as punishment.

       Prison Industry-funded studies have concluded that states save money by using private prisons. However, state-funded studies found that private prisons keep only low-cost inmates, sending the rest back to state-run institutions. Evidence has shown that private prisons are neither discernibly more cost-effective, nor more efficient. Our antiquated and ineffective war on drugs, has become a war on the poor. It feeds those who cannot plea or pay their way out of harmless drug possession charges into a forced labor machine.

“In the past two decades, the money that states spend on prisons has risen at six times the rate of spending on higher education. In 2011, California spent $9.6 billion on prisons, versus $5.7 billion on higher education….. The state spends $8,667 per student per year. It spends about $50,000 per inmate per year. Why is this happening? Prisons are a big business. Most are privately run. They have powerful lobbyists and they have bought most state politicians. Meanwhile, we are bankrupting out states and creating a vast underclass of prisoners who will never be equipped for productive lives.”

— Fareed Zakaria, CNN, March 30, 2012

       The success of these prisons is a reflection of the failures in our campaign against drugs. The Amsterdam model is often utilized as an example of functioning drug policy. A less known success case is Portugal, where over ten years ago all known drugs were decriminalized. They have since reported dramatic drops in their crime rates and drug related health problems. The World Health Organization and United Nations have both advocated Portugal’s example. South American countries have begun to follow suite, most notably in Guatemala where President Molina has called for legalization.

       What may have begun as a campaign against the specters of addiction, crime and destruction, has since grown into a creature that feeds itself on the vulnerabilities of the impoverished. The war on drugs is a terrible injustice and should have ended 20 years ago. Our methods have been proven utterly ineffective. Industries have grown on the backs of citizens who have been torn from their families and communities. Despite all this, the demand for drugs has only increased. There are a surplus of solutions available to explore, the only certainty is that our current policy is no longer tolerable.